Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H68
B.N. Mittal, J. 1. Briefly the case of Smt. Savitri Devi, respondent, is that the property in dispute was owned by Dr. C. M. Paul who had given it on lease to Jag Dutta, petitioner. She purchased the property from Dr. Paul vide sale deed dated April 18, 1968. Consequently Jag Dutta became a tenant under her. She filed an application for ejectment of Jag Dutta, tenant, on the ground that he had not paid arrears of rent and that she required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. The application was contested by Jag Dutta. He tendered the rent on the first date of hearing which was duly accepted by the landlady. The tenant, however, controverted the allegation regarding her personal necessity. He further pleaded that the premises were non-residential and as such the ground of personal necessity was not available to her. He also challenged the validity of the notice by which his tenancy had been terminated. The Rent Controller held that the property in dispute was a resid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]97ITR193(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. A certain H.R. Goosey died on February 2, 1963. He was a domicile of the United Kingdom. He owned 750 ordinary shares in Best and Company (Private) Ltd., Madras, of the face value of Rs. 100 each and 400 ordinary shares in Best & Company (Private) Ltd., Pondicherry, of the face value of Rs. 50 each. The respondent in his capacity as the sole executor under the will of the deceased and as accountable person filed a statement of account under the Estate Duty Act. During the assessment proceedings the accountable person claimed exemption from assessment in respect of the 400 shares of Best & Company (Private) Ltd., Pondicherry, on the ground that the deceased having died prior to April 1, 1963, on which date the Estate Duty Act was extended to Pondicherry, no estate duty was leviable on the shares held by him in Pondicherry prior to such extension. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected this claim holding that Pondicherry became part of the Indian territory with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC560; JT1989(2)SC483; 1989Supp(1)SCC430; [1989]2SCR629
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a batch of appeals and writ petitions challenging the validity of a notification issued on 15-12-1986 by the Central Government under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (Act of Parliament No. 31 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as 'the Reorganisation Act'. By this notification, the Central Government purported to extend to the Union territory of Chandigarh - hereinafter referred to also as 'Chandigarh' - The provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act), as it was in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification and subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment in Ramesh Birch v. Union , upheld the validity of the above notification and hence the special leave petitions. The writ petitions have been directly filed in this Court challenging the validity of the notification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker101
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. Thepetitioner, an M.B.B.S. Graduate of the Kerala University having completed a Course of House Surgeoncy in October, 1982, had applied for admission to the post-graduate course in the order of preference to the. subjects of Medicine, Gynaecology and Surgery. He seeks to quash the Government Orders Exts. P-8 and P-18 and the Prospectus Ext. P-11 issued by the Government of Kerala for the post-graduate courses commencing in 1982-83 in the Medical Colleges in the State. As per Ext. P-18 the Government adopted the principle accepted in Ext. P-8 and ordered that admission to the postgraduate courses for the year 1982-83 will also be made on the basis of an entrance examination to be conducted before the end of October, 1983 as recommended by the Expert Committee with the exception that Departmental candidates will be selected according to the practice hitherto followed on the basis of seniority in the case of Tutors in Medical Colleges and weightage for service and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The State Legislature of Assam, on obtaining previous Presidential sanction under proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution, enacted the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2001 (Assam Act 4 of 2001)(in short, 'the principal Act') with a view to levy tax on entry of goods, into any local area of Assam for consumption, use or sale therein, which came into force on October 1, 2001, on publication of a notification dated September 28, 2001 in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) specifying the said date, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 1(3) of the said Act. Clause (b) of Section 2(1) defines 'entry of goods into a local area' as entry of goods as specified in the schedule into a local area from any place outside the State for consumption, use or sale therein. Section 2(1)(d) defines 'importer' as a person who brings specified goods into the local area from any place outside the State for consumption, use or sale including for consumption or use of such goods in works...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR819; 1998(2)BomCR673; 1998(3)MhLj19
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner-tenant, now represented by his legal heirs, by this petition impugns the order dated 15-6-1988 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, which allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent-landlord.2. The genesis of the dispute arose when the Aval Karkun commenced an enquiry under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the B.T. & A.L. Act). Initially an enquiry was initiated in the year 1960 wherein the statements of the petitioner-tenant and the respondent-landlord were recorded. On recording of the statements the Tenancy Aval Karkun held that the land bearing R.S. No. 372/4, 372/6, 372/8 and 393/2 of village Shenoli were tenanted to Shri Babu Parasu Kaikadi, now represented by his legal heirs in this Court upto the year 1955-56 and that in the year 1956-57 the landlord took unlawful possession without taking an order under section 29(2) of B.T. & A.L. Act. It has however...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)637; AIR1998SC2224; JT1998(4)SC212; (1998)IIIMLJ81(SC); 1998(3)SCALE636; (1998)5SCC21; [1998]3SCR497
ORDERMisra, J.1. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common order, the subject matter of dispute including pleadings and documents being the same with common evidence resulting into a common order, hence they are being disposed of by means of this common judgment.2. The present appellants are the tenants and respondent, the landlord. The short question raised is whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants are validly depositing the rent Under Section 9(3) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), could they be treated as defaulters liable for eviction, when they continued to deposit the said rent as aforesaid in spite of inter se dispute between the landlord culminating by dismissal of the suit for default?3. To appreciate this point, it is necessary to dwell on the facts of this case. Out of the two appellants, one appellant is a tenant in respect of the demised premises running the cyc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3527; [2001(91)FLR182]; (2002)1GLR792; JT2001(7)SC268; 2001LabIC3656; (2001)IILLJ1087SC; 2001(5)SCALE626; (2001)7SCC1; 2001(4)SCT1(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC228; 2001DGLS(soft)1084:2001(111)CLR349
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J.1. Leave is granted in the Special Leave petitions.2. In Food Corporation of India, Bombay, v. Transport & Dock Workers Union, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, having noticed the conflict of opinion between different Benches including two three-Judge Benches of this Court on this interpretation of the expression 'appropriate Government' in Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the CLRA Act') and in Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act') and having regard to the importance of the question of automatic absorption of contract labour in the establishment of the principal employer as a consequence of an abolition notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, referred these cases to a larger Bench. The other cases were tagged with the said case as the same questions arise in them also. That is how these cases have come up before us.3. To comprehend the controversy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1983Guj34; (1983)1GLR292
ORDERB.K. Mehta, J.1. By order of May 4, 1982, this suit was stayed for reasons to be subsequently pronounced which are stated hereunder :On behalf of the original first and fourth defendant, the owners of vessel Hoegh Orchid, and their agents in India respectively, a notice of motion was taken out for a stay of the suit and further proceedings mainly on the ground that there was a foreign arbitration clause in the chartered party contract entered into between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the said defendants on the other. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out briefly a few facets which necessitated the filing of the present suit by the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India respectively as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. On or about July 14, 1973 the Union of India, the first plaintiff herein, entered into a chartered party contract with Lief Hoegh and Co., Oslo, Norway who are the owners of the aforesaid vessel Hoegh Orchid wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR2605; 1994(3)KarLJ378
S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. These group of matters comprised in List-1 and II are referred to a Full Bench pursuant to an order of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us, (SBM, CJ., and NDVBJ) dated 30.7.1993 as according to the Division Bench, there was a conflict between the Decisions rendered by Mr. Chandrakantaraj Urs, in Writ Petition No. 4563/87, and group decided on 14.7.1987 and as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2059-2096/87 and connected matters decided on 2.12.1987, and against which Judgments, several Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on the one hand and Judgment of Mr. Justice Doddakalegowda, in NANJANAYAKA AND ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. etc., : AIR1990Kant97 and which was the subject matter of pending appeals before a Division Bench on the other. The Division Bench placing reliance on the Decision of the Full Bench of this Court in : AIR1993Kant306 referred the entire group of these matte...
Tag this Judgment!